I found that quote connecting computer virus and HIV/AIDS. My connection to
computer hackerz should be obvious, also. I thought others may be interested
in this so posted it.

In a 1988 New York Times article, the chairman of the Computer Virus
Industry Association, Kenneth P. Weiss, made this clear in his description of
the challenges to informational hygiene: "The most stringent [protection]
procedures -- telling people not to touch other people's computers or to use
public domain software -- is a little like telling people not to have sex in
order to stop the spread of AIDS"

quoted and cited in:
WHEN SNOW ISN'T WHITE by Barbara Browning
URL=http://www.echonyc.com/~women/Issue17/art-browning.html

The Leibnizian differential connection (anyone into realist POV and Leibniz's
Monad?) between racism, sexism and homophobia while not spelt out in
the seemingly problematic epistemological suggestions in this article and yet
obvious in the topography are interesting also. Into this differential
equation we could add class, discrimination against people with illness and
so forth going onto as many dimensions as is needed in a sort of Lorentzian
transformation. In Leibniz's differential calculus, dx is nothing, dy is
nothing but dx/dy is something. If anyone needs to know more, they can sit
through first year pure mathematics lectures at Sydney Uni as I did as an
(empty vessel Platonic) teenage (rent) boy, since I happily forget most of it
and came near the bottom of my year in math exams. (The boy I was madly in
love with at the time came near the top while doing the exam tripping on
acid.....)

As for the Monad, look at it as a sort of lens grinding to bring into focus a
clear picture within a perspectival frame and call it realist point of view
as Henry James did. Now, if we look at Deleuze's philosophical concept of the
Nomad, we can see that this critiques the Monadic focal point of Leibniz into
a fuzzy, vague, out of focus concept in smooth space. This is one possible
way into these concepts, just a foot into the concepts, perhaps. But enough
to make a poets thinking, and then run like hell out of maths and philosophy,
which poets must do if they are to become poets and not be trapped in a
philosophical police state.

The thing is not to look at these philosophers as speaking God given truth.
This sort of dogmaticism is death to poetry and art but to simply make,
albeit partial, images or figures on a plane of composition to create affects
and percepts. David Hockney's reverse perspective and multiple points of view
in his Grand Canyon painting does something interesting, in this way, also.
It remains to be seen where Hockney can go with this, what are the limits of
the aesthetic and technical planes he is theorizing, but it certainly
critiques the Monadic realist point of view. Also, this provides a way into
my theory of Nomadic Writing I am doing in _Swindle_, too. This term I use,
Nomadic Writing, puzzled some Deleuze readers as they thought Deleuze said
all writing was state writing. Anyway, who says math has nothing to do with
poetry and art? Rimbaud's ejaculatory explosions are already cybernetic
theories, too. Art and poetry is already theory. There is no need for a
theory to define poetry and art as Hegel and Romantic criticism understands,
claiming art and literature is the work of animal minds that needs to be made
understandable to human thought and face judgment by the so-called refined
esthetic sensibilities of the critic.

Just some thinking, as some on this list asked quite a while ago for some
extra comments and I was too ill with chronic fatigue to reply. Better late
then never, I suppose.

best, Chris Jones.